Raanjhanaa released on June 21, 2013 and since has been gaining attention, both positive and negative. Extremely curious to see Dhanush perform after the grand success of Kolaveri Di and being a sucker for Bollywood love stories, I finally landed in the theatre.
First things first, Raanjhanaa is no different from the innumerable Bollywood love-stories that we have seen over the years. Boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, family objects, boy persists. But there is a small twist - the girl is confused and, sorry about the spoiler, leads to the boy's death.
A particular article by Shobhaa De in Mumbai Mirror, Does Raanjhanaa glorify stalking, made me sit up and re-think the whole definition of feminism. The film has been receiving criticism on the grounds of 'glorifying' stalking.
Let's look at a few key points of contention in De's article. People who have already seen the film would understand the points better but for others I would try to be as detailed as possible without spoiling the film for you, in case you have got your tickets ready.
"While there was something
deliriously charming about the zany 'Tanu weds Manu' made by the same
bloke, this one is seriously psychotic."
Tanu weds Manu was about a well-educated, London-settled, NRI who would go to any length to make his lady-love happy, even if that meant making sure that she marries another man.
Raanjhanaa is about a semi-educated, son of a Benaras pandit, street boy who would go to any length to make his lady-love happy, even if that meant making sure that she marries another man.
Do we see the similarity?
R. Madhavan, in Tanu weds Manu, is a gentleman because he is demure in his expressions of love. Dhanush, in Raanjhanaa, is overtly expressive of his feelings and, thus, becomes the stalker. Isn't it a little unfair to expect the same behaviour from an NRI and a Benaras pandit?
"The movie actually
glorifies a dangerous social crime (stalking) and makes a hero out of a
man who ruins so many lives because the girl he loves does not love him
back!"
Stalking is undoubtedly a social crime. In India we have innumerable cases of criminal acts against a girl where she is either raped or poured acid on because she does not reciprocate the boy's feelings.
Dhanush follows Sonam with single-minded dedication but never does anything to insult or harm her publicly. Sorry to disappoint, but no attempted-rape and guilt scenes in this one!
The only point where he loses his calm is when he discovers that he, a Hindu, was rejected on grounds of religion, whereas, the girl, a Muslim, was lying to her family and marrying another Hindu. He feels cheated and insulted. But what ensues is hardly his doing. He reveals the truth out of anger and in an attempt to break the marriage. But never does he intend or perpetrate the boy (Abhay Deol) being beaten up with dire consequences. On the contrary, on discovery of the result, he goes all the way to bring the two lovers together.
"Dhanush (talented,
vaghera-vaghera ...BUT!) is shown hounding poor Sonam (a commendable
performance) in a manner so crude and relentless, it is a wonder she
doesn't push him off the nearest cliff."
De needs to get out of her comfortable, plush Mumbai apartment more often, not for exotic, foreign vacations, but for the smaller cities and towns of India. She might realize that it is a common way of proposing in these cities by following a girl around. If girls started pushing boys off the nearest cliff every time, then the boy-girl ratio in our country would be inverse. It is not stalking till it gets criminal.
Did De miss the parts where Sonam enjoys the attention, to the point where she waits for him to show up simply so that she can slap him? She finally agrees to meet Dhanush, in her own words, "tumhari consistency ki wajah se mil rahe hain, pyar karte hain isliye nahin." If Dhanush is a stalker then Sonam is a trickster. She will go on to use the boy for all her purposes, starting from talking to her father about the other man to bringing things for her but when its time to fall in love then he's not good enough. Why raise a man's hopes, I ask, when you know it will lead to nothing?
"Not only does the
lovestruck Kundan embarrass Zoya over and over again, he refuses to take
her firm, unambiguous 'no' for an answer."
For a minute I'll buy into De's argument here. A 'no' is a 'no'. If a girl says she does not love you then let her be in peace.
Now let's turn this around. I am hoping that De believes that the same would apply to a boy. Or is it alright for a girl to pursue a boy even if he says 'no'? De has objections to Dhanush 'stalking' Sonam even though she has said it in no unclear words that she is not interested. Does De also have objections to Swara (Bindiya) stalking Dhanush even though he tells her in no unclear terms that he is not interested? Or maybe De overlooks Swara's constant nagging because it is a woman in question, or maybe because she is not the protagonist of the story, or simply because she is ignorant of the number of cases in India where women use the law to their benefit to ruin a man simply because he did not give in to her demands?
"Raanjhana (I had no clue what the title stood for... I assumed it was the heroine's name spelt South Indian style)"
My humble apologies but I am forced to doubt De's knowledge of Indian folklore if she did not know what the title stood for (ref. Punjabi folklore of Heer-Ranjha) and if she assumed that it was the heroine's name spelt South Indian style. Also, may I ask if she had any particular reasons to assume the latter, considering that the story wasn't set in South India and neither is the director South Indian? Was it purely her racist self working overtime that made the assumption based on the fact that the hero is a Tamil (not a random South Indian)?
"Through all this convoluted mess, Dhanush the Stalker remains crazily focused on tormenting Sonam and her folks."
Tormenting? Or saving? If my memory serves me right, and I am told that I have an excellent memory, through out the film he is helping Sonam and her family. It is, in fact, irritating to notice that a thankless Sonam, like De, is blind to all the times that Dhanush saves her from making a fool of herself due to ego and rage.
"Raanjhanaa is a pretty
nasty film only because it tries to make a martyr out of a selfish,
immature, violent and unstable man who thinks nothing of destroying the
peace of mind of an innocent victim who doesn't love him. The
'solutions' offered are to slash your wrists when things don't work out.
Well, at the end of this wretched experience, I sure as hell was ready
to slash mine."
I agree that Raanjhanaa is a nasty film only because it portrays a selfless, immature, extrovert, and impulsive man who thinks he can go to any extent for his love for a shrewd, conniving, trickster of a woman who doesn't love him but encourages him with false hope. The 'solution' instead of wrist-slashing should have been a few hard slaps for the girl who doesn't bat an eye-lid before manipulating not one but two men into lying and finally into death.
Anand L. Rai (director), through Abhay Deol, gives out a message that every man should remember, specially if you have blind feminists like De alive and kicking, "In ladkiyon ke dimaag ke hisaab se kuch karna nahi chahiye. Jhatke mein sab bikhar gaya!"
